Margaret L. Snyder: Revolution of the Sixties has no place in the 21st century

War on Poverty failed to reduce poverty and succeeded in creating a permanent underclass

The faculty speaker at a recent commencement spoke glowingly of the "revolution of the Sixties" and praised those who labor for the extension of that revolution today.

The revolution actually began before the Sixties and has enjoyed considerable success. Let's take a look.

Social Security, sold as a forced savings program and a way to keep the elderly from having to depend on their children, can be seen in retrospect as the first blow against the family, which must be destroyed to make way for Utopia: The less people rely on each other, the more they depend on the state. The forced savings was a lie. I will still be dependent upon my children; I just won't need to have any contact with them. Uncle Sam, at some cost, will take the money from their paychecks and send it to me.

And that is not all. If you decided that children were too expensive or bothersome to bear and raise, Uncle Sam will take money from my children's paychecks and send it to you too! Indeed, so many have decided to forgo having children that Social Security is demographically unsustainable.

The War on Poverty failed to reduce poverty and succeeded in creating a permanent underclass by destroying the family structure of the poor, replacing the breadwinning father with welfare programs. The best predictor of poverty is not race, but the single-parent family. There is no end to the social woes that result from the destruction of the family.

Now we have the Affordable Care Act, hailed by the revolutionary left as a step on the way to fully nationalized health care. So far it has succeeded in destroying the health care plans of more people than it has helped, sustained unemployment by creating uncertainty for businesses, and caused underemployment by forcing businesses to limit the number of hours they let their employees work. Future effects will include a decline in the quality of care as provider payments are limited, a lack of innovation as the incentives to innovate disappear, and, when fully nationalized health care is achieved, total state ownership of your body.

The commencement speaker ended his talk by observing that every individual on the planet is joined by a web of interconnectedness, a sentiment I share. What I cannot share is the notion that our interconnectedness resides in the state.

A sense of community and solidarity is fostered by a society of free individuals. It is freedom that allows for a positive sense of connectedness. Growing up in an intact family in a free society teaches a child to be responsible for himself, his family and his community and it produces citizens who feel a kinship with their fellows. Everyone knows he will often depend on others and be depended upon, and this leads to voluntary associations, which form the basis of a healthy civil society.

What happens when the state is in charge of everything? Cuba, North Korea or the former Soviet Union ultimately happens. These societies are not characterized by a spirit of solidarity and community, but by corruption, rent-seeking, and a sense of fear and hopelessness. You may protest that Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union are not what the American left has in mind. But this is where the revolution necessarily leads. Inequalities and unmet needs always remain, leading to endless calls for more state power to address them. The burden falls on fewer and fewer taxpayers as the ranks of the needy continue to grow. Finally the few disappear, their wealth and their ability to produce more wealth sapped by the state, leaving everyone poor except the political elite.

The more areas of our lives the state is in charge of, the weaker the web of interconnectedness that sustains civil society. The individual, dependent on the state, feels no gratitude for what he receives, and feels his survival depends on out-competing his neighbors for state favors.

The state, for its part, has no interest in individuals depending on themselves or on each other. Its power comes from those who depend on it. Dependency increases state power, and diminishes and enslaves the individual.

We should not hope for the continued success of this revolution.

Margaret L. Snyder is an instructor in the Department of Foreign Languages at Moravian College.